|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2002 : 06:23:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And as I pointed out in another post, don't you think it is a tad hypocritical to criticiize Fundamentalist Christians for taking the Bible too literally and then condemn mainstream Christians for not taking it literally enough?
There is no hypocrisy, this is a false analogy. The criticizing of Fundamentalist Christians taking the Bible too literally comes in when they use the Bible to justify crimes or hatred against other people.
Mainstream Christians are simply criticized for thinking that they get to pick and choose which verses to take literally.
They are two different criticisms.
quote:
quote:
I would defy you to find one instance where Christ commanded His followers to go out and kill all unbelievers.
I just gave it to you. John 15:6. YOU don't like it because YOU are a decent human being. So YOU say that Jesus didn't really say it because YOU don't want to believe that Jesus had worse morals than YOU have.
On the contrary, you have twisted and distorted its meaning because you could not find any other basis for your hatred of Christianity.
Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Do I win a prize? 
quote:
quote:
When on this list did I ever try to "save" you?
So you have stopped praying for me then?
As I said, I am not praying that you be saved, but that you turn away from your hate.
Maybe you can help me understand this prayer thing.
God knows everything that has happened and will happen, therefore he knows whether or not Slater will "turn away from his hate".
By praying, or asking God for this:
1) doesn't that presume that God doesn't know, and hasn't decided yet what to do about Slater's "hate"?
2) And if you were to pray this, and Slater started posting about how he had seen the light, and will "turn away from his hate", would you believe that it was your prayer that convinced God to change Slater's attitude?
3) And that if you hadn't prayed, God wouldn't have made Slater change?
When you really think about it, prayer and an omnipotent and omniscient god don't mix.
If you're interested, we could start a topic in the Religion folder about prayer and what it's really supposed to accomplish, and it's implications on an omniscient being who knows the future.
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/01/2002 06:26:20 |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 09:54:28 [Permalink]
|
It is unfathomable to me why you use less decrement in the question of the existence of god than you would for a pile of dog shit.
God is not a physical entity, so the rules for determining the reality of physical entities/objects do not apply.
One sentence and you've piled up enough assumptions for an entire seminar.
The only non-physical entities we know about are fictitious. They are products of the imagination.
Since you claim that this one is neither it becomes incumbent upon you to demonstrate this but also how you obtain information bearing on the "not physical."
God works in the lives of men and women by acting through their spiritual aspect, not their physical aspect.
Now you have to prove that there is such a thing as a spirit.
However, people do not operate in a spiritual world, so their spiritual aspects are limited to themselves and do not interact.
And this "spiritual aspect" can be differentiated from imagination/fantasy…just how?
As a result spiritual exitential claims can only be experienced by the person making the claim, thus such claims can only be subjectively proven.
This might be a claim made by a Helenist but never a Christian. Christians deny this argument for all of the thousands of "pagan" gods that mankind has worshiped.
How can this be proof of your god but not of Attis?
This would be where you would expect a Fundamentalist to tell you that you never truly felt God in your life
No, this is where I replying to you when you said it. You aren't a Fundi.
Does it never occur to you that the reason you are so fond of Christianity is not because you agree with its tenets but because you change them to suit your own sensibilities? You believe any damn thing you want and then claim it's Christianity.
I get the exact same argument from Fundamentalists. I find it amazing that despite your opposite-poles beliefs concerning God, that Fundamentalists and Skeptics nonetheless seem to be in such close agreement on many issues.
If you ask a Christian Fundi and a Skeptic if the sky is blue they will both give you the same answer also. You make up your version of Christianity as you go along. As you've stated, anyone can see that.
And as I pointed out in another post, don't you think it is a tad hypocritical to criticiize Fundamentalist Christians for taking the Bible too literally and then condemn mainstream Christians for not taking it literally enough?
No, these are two issues. They have nothing to do with one another.
I just gave it to you. John 15:6. On the contrary, you have twisted and distorted its meaning because you could not find any other basis for your hatred of Christianity.
Have you lost you're mind? Christianity has persecuted Atheists from the start to this very day. I quote the death sentence they gave us that murdered tens of thousands and you say it never happened!!!!
You would have made a great Nazi-"I don't know why you Jews hate Nazis. What you think was an order for genocide from Hitler was really an allegory on ball room dancing."
But you can critique (note, I said critique, not criticize) my beliefs without denigrating them or me. You do it because you like to do it, it makes you feel like a big man to beat up on the little Christian.
Poor baby. Nobody is complementing him for his fuzzy thinking. Awwww.
By the way, I believe essentially the same things as millions of mainstream Christians. As such we all tend to agree on what consitutes a false Christian.
Hey, I have no idea what constitutes a real Christian or a false one. I've only met real ones for some strange reason. They tell me about what the false ones believe but they all tell me something different.
If you ask them every man Jack of them is REAL. If you compile all the stories of what makes a Christian false then they are everyone of them FALSE.
Now whose lying? Your hope is that when the Academy is acquainted with my views they will withdraw their membership.
My hope is that you will abandon a medieval superstition/ faith view of the world and adopt the liberal scientific method.
You know the effect that could have on my career. So in fact you are hoping that your revelation will damage my career. That sounds like attempted sabotage to me.
I know that you are joining under false pretences because you hope it will mean a few extra bucks in your pocket. It sounds like you are the one intent on sabotage.
The evil that has been perfored in the name of Christ was done not by His commandments but in opposition to them.
There is no Christ. We aren't talking about this fictional character. There are only Christians, and their actions speak for themselves. Stop trying to misdirect people.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 12:01:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Good for you. You're a good sport. I don't understand a bit of it and I think it's unhealthy, but that's your decision not mine. Hope it serves you well. I also hope you're on the side of those that wouldn't impose "In God We Trust", "Under God", etc. all over the place on those of us that don't share your ideas.
As a matter of fact I am.
The irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 12:09:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You know the effect that could have on my career. So in fact you are hoping that your revelation will damage my career. That sounds like attempted sabotage to me.
I know that you are joining under false pretences because you hope it will mean a few extra bucks in your pocket. It sounds like you are the one intent on sabotage.
And you "know" this how? I never said anything like that. Can you know read minds as well as hearts? Or is this just a desperate attempt to justigy a persecution campaign?
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 12:58:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you know read minds as well as hearts?
I can read English, which is the language you have written your drivel in.
Are you not man enough to stand behind your own words? 'Cause if this is a joke-this pseudo-scientific BS and these attacks on the "main stream" scientific community, now would be a good time to let everyone in on it so we can all have a laugh at how you tricked us with this act.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 07:06:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Can you know read minds as well as hearts?
I can read English, which is the language you have written your drivel in.
You didn't answer my question. Since I said nothing that could allow you to even speculate that my motives for joining the Academy are anything other than stricyly professional, on what do you base your claim that I am joining simply to enrich myself?
How could I do that? Membership in the Academy does not bring about any monetary award; I have all the funding I'll ever need; and you should know as well as I do that scientific books don't make any money for the authors, not in the short term. So how could I enrich myself? Your calamny makes no sense.
But then nothing you have said is based on any reason that I can recognize. It's just based on hate, pure and simple. It's about time you just give it up.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 10:36:18 [Permalink]
|
echthroi_man, no comment on Luke 19:27? You did claim that such a quote didn't exist...
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2002 : 12:20:18 [Permalink]
|
Luke 19:27 seems about as clearly written as you can get.
Kill the Atheists.
John 15:6 reinforces the order and gives the desired means of execution. Burning them alive.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 08/02/2002 12:21:37 |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 06:17:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
And as I pointed out in another post, don't you think it is a tad hypocritical to criticiize Fundamentalist Christians for taking the Bible too literally and then condemn mainstream Christians for not taking it literally enough?
There is no hypocrisy, this is a false analogy. The criticizing of Fundamentalist Christians taking the Bible too literally comes in when they use the Bible to justify crimes or hatred against other people.
Mainstream Christians are simply criticized for thinking that they get to pick and choose which verses to take literally.
They are two different criticisms.
I do not agree, but let's look at the situation a little more closely.
You say I cannot take the Bible too literally. That implies two points. The first is that you would agree, if only for the sake of argument, that there are verses that should be taken literally and there are verses that should not. The second is that Christians should obey the verses that are to be taken lierally but not the ones that should not be.
Based on that, one would think that each Christian should decide which verses are to be obeyed and which should not. But then you turn around and condemn them for picking and chosing which verses they will obey.
I realize that your goal is to get people to abandon the Bible, but before I do that I need you to justify this contradictory position. If I am required to obey only some verses and not others, but I cannot decide which verses to obey, then how am I suppose to know which to obey and which to ignore?
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 07:09:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I would defy you to find one instance where Christ commanded His followers to go out and kill all unbelievers.
Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Do I win a prize?
No, because you took this verse entirely out of context. The way you have presented it makes one imagine that Christ is sitting somewhere with his Disciples around Him, and He says to them, "I give you a commission: Go out and kidnap all who will not serve Me and bring them here, and then kill them before Me." But that is not the situation.
The situation is that He was telling a parable, and those were the words of a character in the parable. The storyline goes like this. A nobleman is ganted a kingdom to rule over, and he must go to a far country to receive it. Before he leaves he gives a pound to each of ten servants and asks that they invest it. After he departs the people of his land send an embassy to the same far country, telling the rulers there that they do not want to be ruled by this nobleman. When he returns he calls for an accounting from his servants. He rewards those who invested his money and gained a return by giving them cities to rule over, but he condemns the one servant who simply kept the pound safe instead of investing it. The servant is not killed, he simply has his pound taken from him and given to another servant. It is at this point that he orders the that the people who sent the embassy be brought before him and killed.
Like all parables, it is not a commandment of what his followers should do, but an allegorical tale meant to explain the secrets of Christs mission. In this tale, Christ is the nobleman. After His crucifixion and Resurrection He Ascends into Heaven to prepare a place for His followers. This is the meaning of the nobleman going into a far country to receive a kingdom. Before He left, however, He commissioned His followers to go out into the world and preach the gospel to all mankind. This is the meaning of the giving of the pounds to the servants to invest. Christians who do as He commands and gain a return of converts will be rewarded in Heaven; those who do not do as He commands will have what reward they would have coming taken away from them and given to others. This is the meaning of how the servant was punished. Finally those people who while Christ was away declare themselves to be enemies of His will then be punished when He returns to reign over the earth. That is the meaning of the verse Tokydreamer quoted.
Three points should be made. First, the fact that enemies of Christ will be punished by Him when He returns is by no means a command that we should do the job ourselves. We cannot read the hearts of men, so we cannot determine who is an enemy and who is not. The fact that ambitious, power-hungry men have used this verse as an excuse to kill their rivals and enemies is by no means an indication that they doing "God's work". Christ is likely to declare such men His enemies because they pervert his Will, and so punish them while rewarding their victims as martyrs in name, even those who were not declared followers of His.
The second point is that Athiests are not automatically enemies of Christ; only those who are anti-theistic, who actively work against the spreading of His word, would probably be declared such (probably, because there again I cannot know this for sure, not being Christ; it does, however, seem reasonable). Even then, I am sure Christ will take motivation into acount. Those who are simply opposed to the spread of what they see as superstition or what they see as imposition of one set of beliefs on the whole world may not be condemned because of the sincerity in their beliefs. But those who do it out of pure hate, or for selfish reasons, probably will be condemned. Again, I am making no blanket statements of certainty about who will be saved and who will be condemned, since I have no idea who these people would be; I am merely explaining the meaning of a verse taken out of context to justify a condemnation of Christianity.
The third and final point is that it is by no means certain that the servant who did not invest his pound would be cast out of Heaven; all that is certain is that he simply will not receive a reward for his good works on earth. In other words, he may not receive a luxury suite in the house of God, but he may find some kind of accomodations.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 07:36:22 [Permalink]
|
God knows all. God created all. God knew who would be condemned before God created all, therefore some were condemned before they were created.
No one criticized anyone for taking the bible too literally. You were criticized for paying any attention to it at all. Fundies are at least consistent in thinking they believe everything in the Bible literally, but when push comes to shove, we usually see they haven't even read the book.
Again, if you're going to quote the Bible, you need to quote the entire Bible. Simply quoting part of it brings it out of context. Certainly God, when writing his book, or "inspiring" it if you prefer, wasn't smart enough just to say what He means, it has to be "interpreted." Right.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 07:47:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
When on this list did I ever try to "save" you?
So you have stopped praying for me then?
As I said, I am not praying that you be saved, but that you turn away from your hate.
Maybe you can help me understand this prayer thing.
I will try.
quote:
God knows everything that has happened and will happen, therefore he knows whether or not Slater will "turn away from his hate".
I don't believe that God has this kind of perfect knowledge. I certainly believe that, when God views time He sees one construct instead of a flowing panorama as we see it, but I do not believe the future is fixed, or that anyone's fate has been predetermined. As such, the construct that God sees is constantly changing as men make decisions about the future.
quote:
By praying, or asking God for this:
1) doesn't that presume that God doesn't know, and hasn't decided yet what to do about Slater's "hate"?
I think that is entirely possible, given what I said above.
quote:
2) And if you were to pray this, and Slater started posting about how he had seen the light, and will "turn away from his hate", would you believe that it was your prayer that convinced God to change Slater's attitude?
It could have influenced God to get off His duff and do something, or it may have simply reinforced in God's mind that what He was already doing was a good idea.
quote:
3) And that if you hadn't prayed, God wouldn't have made Slater change?
I don't know, since I am not privy to what God is doing. Since I believe that God is merciful and does not want to condemn anyone if He can avoid it, that He is already working on Slater. At the same time, however, as Christians we are expected to pray for our fellow man, even those who hate us and revile us. As such, we should not stand idly by and simply say, "Well, God will do it." We are expected to petition God to intervene, even if He is already doing so. We do this because as Christians we love our fellow man, no matter who he is, not because we think we can manipulate God or in hope of reward.
quote:
When you really think about it, prayer and an omnipotent and omniscient god don't mix.
I don't see God as being omniscient in the classical sense, of having total, perfect knowledge. I see it as He is simply so much smarter than us that it seems to us as if He is omniscient, but I have no problem with believing that there are gaps in God's knowledge.
Ditto for omnipotence. I certainly believe God has the power to influence us, but I do not believe He has the power to change us against our wills. He will certainly try to convince Slater to turn away from his hate, but if he refuses to do so, God is not going to change Slater into a loving person without Slater's permission. The reason is because, like all the rest of us, Slater has free will; he is free to determine his own destiny. Of course he must then take the consequences of the destiny he has chosen, but God is not going force him into "chosing" a destiny he does not want. All He will do is simply try to persuade him. Unfortunately the Devil is also there, doing the same thing, only trying to persuade Slater to a very different destiny. If Slater finds the Devil's arguments more persuavive than God's, that is his choice and God is not going to change it.
Now, of course I mean all this allegorically. I do not literally believe that God and the Devil are whispering in his mind, each trying to influencing him through verbal argument. No, they operate on the spiritual level, which is far more subtle than voices in the mind. But for all that their influence is just as strong as if it were voices in the head.
quote:
If you're interested, we could start a topic in the Religion folder about prayer and what it's really supposed to accomplish, and it's implications on an omniscient being who knows the future.
Believe it or not, I did not become a member of this forum to discuss religion. I had wanted to limit myself to simply giving an answer the DVF's pole, but if people ask me questions I will reply, and if they critique my beliefs I will try to clarify them, and if they criticize my beliefs I will defend them. But if they ignore them, I will not prosyletize.
And no, I do not mean that people cannot comment on my beliefs if they want to. I only mean that if there are people who do not want me share my beliefs, they should not create opportunities in which I would feel compelled to share them, as explained above.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 08:02:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No one criticized anyone for taking the bible too literally. You were criticized for paying any attention to it at all.
Yes, I know, hence you guys have no qualms about using a contradictory, hypocritical argument, since what you really want is not that Christians take the Bible right way, but that they do not take it at all.
As I said, though, before I go that far, please justify your use of an irrational argument like this one.
quote:
Again, if you're going to quote the Bible, you need to quote the entire Bible. Simply quoting part of it brings it out of context.
Not of you explain the context of the verse when you quote it; that is essential.
quote:
Certainly God, when writing his book, or "inspiring" it if you prefer, wasn't smart enough just to say what He means, it has to be "interpreted." Right.
On the contrary, God could have implanted His commandments into our minds so that we would have no choice but to obey them. But that would have made us automotons instead of free-thinking human beings. The price of free will is that God must work through people, but that also means that people will put their own ideas into the mix, thus confusing the picture. God could easily correct that, but the price of free will is that He must allow us to live out our lives as WE see fit. As such, if people decide to add to, or change, or even throw out, His words, He has to let us do it. That then puts upon us the burden of deciding which are the words of God and which are the words of men. God will help us make that choice, through the Holy Spirit, but He will not force a decision upon us. As such, people are free to reject the Bible completely just as they free to take every word literally. Both are irrational extremes, but people are free to chose either one as they desire.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 08:20:17 [Permalink]
|
Show me where I have contradicted anything that I've said. I've said that the bible says this or that. You have said that I was wrong. I have not criticized the fundies for taking the bible "too literally," actually, I've criticized them for not knowing what the Bible says. Everything that they don't like is "out of context" as you've demonstrated, or misinterpreted, just like you. It would make no sense for me to say that they take it "too literally" as that would imply that I think any of it is worth taking at all. It is a mish-mash of fantasy, history, myth and just lousy writing.
As far as I can tell from your description of god is that he has no special abilities at all except that he's smarter than the rest of us and he loves us enough to condemn a predetermined portion of us to Hell for eternity. Sounds like Batman on steroids.
Yes, I know, hence you guys have no qualms about using a contradictory, hypocritical argument, since what you really want is not that Christians take the Bible right way, but that they do not take it at all.
As I said, though, before I go that far, please justify your use of an irrational argument like this one.
quote:
Again, if you're going to quote the Bible, you need to quote the entire Bible. Simply quoting part of it brings it out of context.
[/quote]
Not of you explain the context of the verse when you quote it; that is essential.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 13:06:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The situation is that He was telling a parable, and those were the words of a character in the parable.
Ah yes, the mob boss telling his hitman a "story", all the while giving him a very meaningful look.
It's certainly not out of context. Parable or not, the subject was words of Jesus that followers interpret as a license to kill.
This meets the qualifications 100%.
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
